Rand Paul: Liberterian or Corporate Sellout

a reply to: Daedal

One of Rand's main political positions is less involvement in foreign wars. But nice assumption you stuck on the end. Anti-drone, Anti tax , smaller government and you painting him like some evil bastard.


Let me guess you're a Hillary voter grasping at straws's?

a reply to: Greathouse

No I'm not a Hillary supporter. Like I said, there are some things in the proposal I agree with in part. Take for instance the economic freedom zones, a flat tax. But anything that continually gives compensation to war and corporate interests I disagree with.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: olaru12

A Corporatist? As opposed to what? A governmentist? Which is Just another corporation? Bought and paid for?

The label is cute, but ends up muddying the waters even more.....

as opposed to a PATRIOT....someone concerned about the citizens and taxpayers of this country. A concept long lost on Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Fascists and Corporatist.

originally posted by: Daedal

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Daedal

Increased military spending abroad ( external tyranny)

I quit reading right there as it became pretty obvious you have no idea what you were talking about. Your link is nothing more than a political attack written with biased views.

Can you explain to me what it is I have no idea about?

Synopsis:

The Cycle of State

It's not a political attack as you mentioned. It applies to both parties, Dem and Republican alike.

I much rather like this idea. It would certainly curb efforts against prioritizing war. If it hits the multimillionaires in their pockets, perhaps their constituents in DC lobbying for militarization and war profiteering may decrease.

Source

Sen. Sanders isn’t just demanding the war tax. He is going to force Republicans to vote on it by proposing a war tax amendment. The way the Vermont senator has handled the Republican budget is the exact reason why Harry Reid gave him the top Democratic seat on the Senate Budget Committee. Bernie Sanders has waged a tireless battle against the Republican budget all week long. After Republican war hawks, led by Lindsey Graham, threatened to blow up the budget over military funding cuts, Republicans caved, but now they are going to have to deal with Sen. Sanders pointing out their hypocrisy at every turn.

I see you added to edit I'm glad I came back to look.

First of all your position on his stance on TPP is uninformed. In your OP you mentioned that he viewed undisclosed material recently then made his decision. All the more he called for Obama to release the undisclosed material. Yet in your idealistic view you formed a opinion without all the information.

This is no different than the attack on Rand after he voted no on the NSA reform act. Uninformed people came out of the woodwork annoyed about it until they realize that it would've automatically extended parts of the patriot act. That is something Rand has voted against regularly.

He voted against the NSA reform so that his vote against patriot act refunding will carry its full weight. I'll put it simple for you he wants the whole patriot act gonna not just parts of it.


Until you can review the new information Rand Paul reviewed your opinion on his position is uninformed.

a reply to: Daedal

Your OP claims he is a corporate sellout, yet he wants the flat tax? Do you realize that makes very little if any sense?

a reply to: olaru12

Oh really? You define a patriot as against corporations? Pro-government?

An invented 'them vs us' that does nothing but obscure the real issues?

I suspect there are more than a few patriots that would say you take liberties.

I, also, have a label that describes you. Patriot isn't it.

One thing needs to be pointed out here:

ALL THE CANDIDATES IN BOTH PARTIES ARE CORPORATE SELL OUTS


All we can expect to get is the crumbs that fall from the table of the corporate elite and masters of this oligarchial system

a reply to: Greathouse

That's why I am asking that very question. Although I agree with it, his stance on the TPP is why I brought forward this topic for discussion. What we know of the TPP, and it's very little, how can you support it and enhance economics at home?

a reply to: Daedal

Honestly I don't know. But your position was Rand Paul's position prior to viewing the undisclosed information. I'm not going to pretend to be clairvoyant but I think he must've seen something he agrees with.

a reply to: olaru12

There's lots that needs to be 'reined in'. SOME corporations...and ALL of Government.

There's plenty of blame to go around, the first being the citizens that allowed this mess to happen.

Pretty much all the candidates have some reasonable ideas...if they mean them and intend to do something about them.

Two have showed the grit to stick to their guns. Cruz and Walker. Walker had the positional advantage over Cruz as a governor. He acted. Cruz was only one of a hundred and was limited in his power to act. In his case, he kept to the message despite both Republican and Democrat angst.

Paul has flip-flopped a bit and keeps reading the polls, from what I can see, hopping from the Libertarian side, then to the republican Rhetoric. I trust him a bit less than the other two.

But that's just my opinion. It subject to change. There are no shoe-in, perfect candidates. If he even exists, he probably wouldn't even want the job....

I retract my last post's comment. You jumped my BP with your last comment, which I don't feel I deserve.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Daedal

Honestly I don't know. But your position was Rand Paul's position prior to viewing the undisclosed information. I'm not going to pretend to be clairvoyant but I think he must've seen something he agrees with.

I did agree with a lot of what his father said, but the Ron Paul's of the Republican party either don't exist anymore or far few and in between.

Even the presidents own party disagrees with him on the TPP, the republicans are the main backers. I don't doubt Rands views on some of the issues you mentioned a few posts above, but ceding power for global dominion and corporations to supercede sovereignty of other nations encompasses everything he stands against, IMO.

a reply to: Daedal

I agree with a lot of things his father said. I will ask you to look at the history of all the presidential candidates and find one that has stuck more solidly to his beliefs since he began politics.

I'm from Kentucky I have liked him from the beginning. I researched him back to 1992 and his politics have not changed he still carries the same messages. ( anti-tax smaller government)

I think me and you differ at the junction of actual information. I will choose to obtain all the information I can about a subject before I judge it.


I have a problem anymore with the millennium generation. I call it the "mi" (me) generation. It seems that most members of this generation want instant gratification on all issues no matter how many years it took to screw the issues up.

Politics is a game of absolutes and compromises. I have no problem with someone compromising in order to obtain his absolute positions.

a reply to: Greathouse

Agreed..thanks for the chat.

originally posted by: Willtell
One thing needs to be pointed out here:

ALL THE CANDIDATES IN BOTH PARTIES ARE CORPORATE SELL OUTS


All we can expect to get is the crumbs that fall from the table of the corporate elite and masters of this oligarchial system

Bingo. It amazes me how people are still deluded enough to believe that anyone who wins the democrat and republican nominations won't be a puppet to the corporations that have our government in a deathgrip.

Gold coins decide the laws of the land.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Daedal

I agree with a lot of things his father said. I will ask you to look at the history of all the presidential candidates and find one that has stuck more solidly to his beliefs since he began politics.

I'm from Kentucky I have liked him from the beginning. I researched him back to 1992 and his politics have not changed he still carries the same messages. ( anti-tax smaller government)

I think me and you differ at the junction of actual information. I will choose to obtain all the information I can about a subject before I judge it.


I have a problem anymore with the millennium generation. I call it the "mi" (me) generation. It seems that most members of this generation want instant gratification on all issues no matter how many years it took to screw the issues up.

Politics is a game of absolutes and compromises. I have no problem with someone compromising in order to obtain his absolute positions.

I hate ageist nonsense like this. The Millennials are that way because the previous generation before them made them that way. So when you shame millennials, you may want to take a look in the mirror.

i was born in the early 80s so i don't believe I count among them, but I don't see the point of bashing younger generations.

a reply to: supremecommander

I did not intend to shame the "mi" generation. I agree with most of their politics, the problem arises in teaching the young patience . Nothing happens overnight especially in politics.

Honestly if I did not believe in the "mi" generation I would not be voting for Rand Paul.

The retired health professionals and leadership pacs so far have been major contributors so far we will have to see where his money comes from but as of yet no he is not a corporate sell out

originally posted by: Willtell
Libertarians are dangerous because of their apathetic attitude towards corporate power. They mistake freedom (a relative proposition) for freedom to do what you want to do to anybody in the name of freedom, such as kill and oppress workers and consumers in the name of libertarian “freedom.”

This is the most ridiculous assessment of Libertarians that I have ever read.

He's anti-big government, and instead pro big-corporation/company. Privatize everything and let companies run the country. It was the idea striven for in Ayn Rand's books.

Do we really want a corporatocracy? Because that's what you get when you privatize everything and deregulate everything.

Government and business need to have a finely tuned balance -- a slide to either side is pretty much slavery for the masses.

I'm faded out of the current details these days, but do somehow recall his old senate bid site he mentioned 'strong military' or something along those lines. That abstract could be interpreted as here at home (bringing our forces defend here for a change). Your OP didn't cite any datas showing he's talking now about empire building (a strong defense doesn't inherently mean a globally dominating empire). Perhaps its just well established he is the latter, so do correct me if I'm inquiring 'wrongly'.